CVG - PC Gamer Predictions

April 4th, 2007, 03:12

CVG, the UK portal for Future Publishing&#39;s magazine stable, has a series of PC gaming predictions from PC Gamer UK&#39;s blog. There are four articles written by different authors that include ideas such as Steam taking over PC distribution to crush piracy and Duke Nukem actually getting released soon…ish. Kieron Gillen&#39;s first article is the most interesting:

1) Fallout 3 will disappoint Fallout fans and delight everyone else.
The only thing that confuses me about Bethesda getting the Fallout licence is why they&#39;d even bother. Fallout, while important and brilliant, was never a runaway sales success. At the moment, Bethesda are arguably the most commercially successful western-style Role-playing Game developer on earth. It&#39;d actually be far smarter for them to develop their own post-apocalypse setting from scratch rather than trying to raise Interplay&#39;s child from the nuclear ashes.

The idea of Bethesda doing a post-apocalypse game is as big a story as Bethesda doing Fallout 3. Perhaps even a bigger story. Since it&#39;ll be presumably be appearing on the consoles, where it&#39;ll have no history whatsoever, the "3" is going to make people back away slowly. (Don&#39;t
expect it to come out under the name "Fallout 3" but "Fallout: Some Extra Subtitle")

So what have they bought with the licence? Just the enmity of the hardcore Fallout fans who&#39;ll hate any game Bethesda make with it just on principle.

So why did they do it? Only reason I can work out is Bethesda are just dirty big Fallout fans and would love to play in the Sandbox. Which is a good a reason for the rest of us to be very excited indeed.

I can't agree with them here. The Fallout name is big now. I'm not aware of any game associated more with the Post-Apoc theme, especially among RPG's. Wasteland is the only one close.

I can't think of a game that was ever successful as a Fallout "clone". STALKER is so far the only Post-Apoc game that seems to be successful, but I'm not sure that can be said just yet.

Like most RPG's I think Fallout was still doing brisk sales over time especially after the word of mouth. The same thing happened with PS:T. Its one of the few games this old that generates some buzz today.

Again, I use the comparison of Ultima Online to the Ultima series. In this regard I do agree with the one contention: new players like it and a number of fans of the old game will hate it. Can Beth weather that storm? ToEE didn't but NWN did.

I'm with Gillen on this one. The Fallout name does have a high level of awareness among (older?) PC gamers but I doubt it has any real pull on the Xbox 360 or PS3. On the other hand, Bethsoft themselves are a hot property (as far as the market is concerned) and surely should have been able to design their own setting.

We can't really say how the game is going to be until there are more detils or when it comes out. Who knows it could end up being a true successor to the Fallout franchise and be liked by the hardcore Fallout players. They could even make it appeal to the general gaming community also and get really good sales from both sides. We just don't know till it comes out.

I diagree with Gillen. The Fallout name creates far more press awareness than a new IP would. Sure, any game bethesda makes after Oblivion will receive attention, and would probably sell well. But the Fallout name has been hyped by any game journalist in recent memory, and, ironically, by the same hardcore fanbase that is bound to be unhappy with what Bethesda does with the license. Inevitably the drama that will ensue after the game is unveiled will be covered (repeatedly) by every gaming publication in print and on the net. It doesn't matter that Fallout has no history on the console - by the time it is released every Xbox player will know the story, if not the game behind it. It's gonna be the talk of the town until release and long after. Gillens own article is part of that. And even if this coverage will vocalize the criticism too, the mere attention it gernerates will guarantee stellar sales. I don't know if Bethesda counted on this when they bought the license, but now they cannot loose.

Game journalists are like movie critics: If they happen to like a movie I like, then they're righteous. If they trash my beloved movie, then they're clueless idiots who have lost touch with the mainstream. In either case, I don't base my movie-going choices on their beliefs. Same with game journalists.

Originally Posted by crpgnut
Game journalists are like movie critics: If they happen to like a movie I like, then they're righteous. If they trash my beloved movie, then they're clueless idiots who have lost touch with the mainstream. In either case, I don't base my movie-going choices on their beliefs. Same with game journalists.

Even so I would bet you are likelier to go see a movie that is discussed controversially by every critic on every site and every newspaper plus has articles in editorials and general interest sections about the controversy, than one that gets glowing reviews but is only covered lightly. A good example is the current "300". The contorversy surrounding it gets it media coverage, and its doing great, despite the criticism.

I agree that it made absolutely no sense for Bethesda to buy this license and then basically take a gigantic shit on the fans of the series by making a game that is completely different. The only value that the license has ever had came from the success of Fallout and Fallout 2. It makes no sense to say that this is a strong license with name recognition, and then in the next breath say that the Fallout games were just cult hits so you can't make the next game like that.

Anyone who thinks that Bethesda has an automatic hit on their hands needs to take a look at how Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel sold compared to Fallout. Or look at what Deus Ex: Invisible War did to the careers of Harvey Smith and Warren Spector. This isn't the first time that we've had this conversation. If Bethesda makes Oblivion with guns, then I wouldn't be surprised if it flops miserably.

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
Game journalists are opinion leaders.

Sure, but they are largely dominated by 20-ish males looking for the latest and prettiest 'big boom' they can get. They will banter about Fallout, but many haven't played it or PS:T … they are name dropping in the worst media tradition.

And in that regard I also agree with doctor_kaz - if this doesn't look good these same people who are pimping the Fallout name will be the first in line to crap all over it.

Yes, this isn't the first, nor the second, nor the 3rd time, we've had this discussion.
And I, for one, am through discussing why Bethsoft bought the license, if TB is better than RL combat, if isometric perspective is better than first perspective as well as through discussing any thing loosely related to Fallout.

I'm sorry to say this: But people (from both sides) seem to repeat themselves. That you think that TB or RL combat is the way to go, doesn't make it any more correct - if you say LOUD or for the zilch'th time…

I have only one thing left to say to you when discussing Fallout
(and this doesn't mean I leaving this board, it just means that I'm leaving the FO discussion)

Originally Posted by doctor_kaz
I agree that it made absolutely no sense for Bethesda to buy this license and then basically take a gigantic shit on the fans of the series by making a game that is completely different.

What on earth are you talking about? The game isn't even made yet!!!!! Talking about the chicken coming before the egg.

Not really saying you're wrong but just to present a different view, the NPD group says that the common belief that gamers are now older on average is actually a myth (more or less )…

Report From The NPD Group Shows 45 Percent Of Heavy Video Gamers Are In The Six - To 17-Year-Old Age Group

Study Explores Uncharted Territory of Multi-Dimensional Gamer Segmentation- Refutes Common Assumption that Serious Gaming is Focused Mainly on 18 - to 34-year-old Males to the Exclusion of Kids and Females

PORT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK, September 19, 2006 –Contrary to popular belief that most video game players, and particularly “serious” video game players, are 18- to 34-year-old males, 45 percent of the NPD Heavy Gamer segment and nearly one-in-three Avid Console Gamers, the largest overall segment, are between the ages of six and 17, according to The NPD Group’s recently released Video Gamer Segmentation Report.

According to the report, Heavy Gamers’ demographic/gender parameters also expand beyond 18- to 34-year-old males: 21 percent of this segment is female. The Heavy Gamer segment comprises only 3 percent of the total game playing population, contrary to common assumption that these serious gamers constitute a larger percentage of the game-playing population and retail sales dollars.
“Heavy gamers can be critical to a title or retailer’s success since they are the market leaders, but focusing on this segment entirely is ignoring a much broader consumer base and larger revenue potential,” said Anita Frazier, entertainment industry analyst, The NPD Group.

Those in the Prefer Portable segment may also be older than previously thought. While the majority of these gamers are under 18 years of age, one in three is 18-44 years old.

“NPD is excited to finally bring a measured approach to gamer segmentation and is looking forward to releasing future updates and shedding more light on this important topic,” said Frazier.

The report divides gamers into relevant segments by the number and type of systems owned, whether or not consumers are primary or secondary users, frequency of use, and the number of titles purchased/received. It provides a better understanding of ownership and usage patterns within gamer segments, as well as specific platforms, titles, genres, and retailers.

Methodology
The data in this report was collected via an online survey using NPD’s robust U.S consumer panel. The sample is comprised of 16,670 respondents ages six to 44. Panelists who currently own video game systems (portable and console) were targeted.

Discussing the strategy behind purchasing the rights is a different discussion to whether TB or RT is required, in my opinion.

Automatic hit? Obviously that depends on the exact definition of "hit"…I really can't see this failing based on Bethsoft's name and likely use of technology…but I also can't see it being bigger than Oblivion. At the end of the day, high fantasy will trump post-apoc regardless of the other parameters.

License. Kharn will have the details to hand but they have the right to make Fallout 3 and then (IIRC - don't have time to check) the right to make sequels for additional payments (around $1M each time?). They can also develop handheld and other products but *not* an MMO.